From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7714 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2002 03:43:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7704 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2002 03:43:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2002 03:43:03 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g323gxc09149; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:42:59 -0600 Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 19:43:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200204020342.g323gxc09149@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Tweak gdb.java/jmisc.java to pass on PowerPC X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > [this is especially nasty because failing to print a Java array makes GDB > very sad. It loops for hours, walking up the stack (very slowly because of > thread_db). We then kill gdb, which may or may not kill jmisc, so the > testsuite tends to leave zombies lying around.] Maybe my view of the world is a little twisted, but I think a test case is good when it makes gdb lose its mind. I am in favor of changing the test suite to work around bugs in compilers and other tools that are outside our responsibility but gdb is inside our responsibility. > This patch adds a use of the argument after the prologue, so that it will > still be available to print. OK to commit? I would rather keep the original test and file a bug report. Perhaps clone the test so that you can test the behavior that you want to test as well as banging on the broken behavior. My two cents, Michael C